We present analyses of three families of compressed air energy storage (CAES) systems: conventional CAES, in which the heat released during air compression is not stored and natural gas is combusted to provide heat during discharge; adiabatic CAES, in which the compression heat is stored; and CAES in which the compression heat is used to assist water electrolysis for hydrogen storage. The latter two methods involve no fossil fuel combustion. We modeled both a low-temperature and a high-temperature electrolysis process for hydrogen production. Adiabatic CAES (A-CAES) with physical storage of heat is the most efficient option with an exergy efficiency of 69.5% for energy storage. The exergy efficiency of the conventional CAES system is estimated to be 54.3%. Both high-temperature and low-temperature electrolysis CAES systems result in similar exergy efficiencies (35.6% and 34.2%), partly due to low efficiency of the electrolyzer cell. CAES with high-temperature electrolysis has the highest energy storage density (7.9 kWh per m3 of air storage volume), followed by A-CAES (5.2 kWh/m3). Conventional CAES and CAES with low-temperature electrolysis have similar energy densities of 3.1 kWh/m3.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Safaei et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: